0 votes

Is the Gold standard Unconstitutional?

I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say about the constitution, and politics. I have nothing against the man personally or his foreign policy at all, but I've come to understand that his Economic policy would be detrimental to this country not just because it would not create any kind of monetary reform, but because his economic policy is unconstitutional.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=11142.0
Ron Paul is an Austrian Economist, and The Austrian Economist believes that the market should regulate the market. You'll notice that whenever something goes wrong Ron Paul will blame the government for America's problems. When the FED spends 24 Trillion dollars, Ron Paul blames the Government. When the private sector creates 1.5 Quadrillion dollars in worthless debt based securtized assets, Ron Paul blames the Government. When the President imposes outright fascist policy, he again points his finger at the Government and calls it socialism. The government definitely deserves some blame, but to blame the government exclusively for corruption is ignorant of what is really going on. Most of the laws passed in washington today are lobbied for by corporations and banks. Nobody denies that, but Ron Paul will rarely if ever mentions that corporations are involved. If he did he wouldn't be able to call it socialism, and he never mention that most of Americas debt comes from derivitives cause by deregulation on the market. If he did talk about Derivatives people would understand that the market is not perfect and that you can't let it Regulate itself.

“The free market doesn't mean Wall Street should be free to steal from the American taxpayer. It's a free market, not a spree market.”

-Dennis Kuchinich

Ron Paul is also a supporter of the Gold Standard, which I would be for if not for two things. One There is not enough gold in the world to create gold standard for 300 million Americans. You can find out more about that here:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/question213.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E0UPBtmTb0

And two because it's unconstitutional! Now why is the Gold standard unconstitutional? Well lets look at the constitution. Section 8 of the constitution, which says what the powers of congress are gives congress the power

Quote from: Section 8 constitution
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

What part of that makes the gold standard unconstitutional? Lets ask Ron Paul...

http://www.rense.com/general75/aabol.htm

Quote
“Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.”

Ron Paul- Abolish the Federal Reserve

You notice when reading this article that just before this paragraph Ron Paul quotes the constitution and says that the constitution gives congress the power coin money and to regulate the value of the currency, but with gold standard congress cannot control it's value because the value of gold is already set in stone, so to speak. In that system congress can never do the job the constitution gave them which is to regulate the value of the currency In the interest of the American people.

Now your going to love what I've found out about What ending the fed would do to the economy. Here's a little history lesson on Andrew Jackson.

Quote
In the Panic of 1837, the stage had been set for depression by outgoing President Andrew Jackson's and Secretary of the Treasury Roger Taney's abolition of the Second Bank of the United States, by their cultivation of the state "pet" banks, by their imbecilic Specie Circular of 1836, which demanded gold payment to the federal government for the purchase of public lands, and by their improvident distribution of the Treasury surplus to the states. London's ultimate weapon turned out to be the Bank of England bank rate. With all the American defenses sabotaged, the Bank of England sharply raised its discount rates, sucking gold specie and hot money liquidity back across the Atlantic, while British merchants and trading houses cut off their lines of credit to their American customers. In the resulting chaos, not just private banks and businesses went bankrupt, but also the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan, which repudiated their debts, permanently impairing US credit in the world. Internal improvements came to a halt, and the drift towards secession and civil war became more pronounced. - Webster Tarpley - AGAINST OLIGARCHY

The fact is that that the Federal reserve is currently the engine of the world economy. Nations around the world hold dollars in reserves. If the Fed was suddenly abolished the engine that drives the dollar would implode and any banks that have dollars in reserves would be forced to sell dollars for other currencies. At that point what is there to buy gold for a gold standard with? Will you just get the gold for free? Or will you buy gold from other countries at interest and become a debt system again? Not to mention what will the IMF and world bank do if the Federal reserve was suddenly gone? Will we go to the SDR (The world currency)?

http://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/rms_five.aspx

This is a very serious issue and it's why I'm for nationalizing the fed with The American Monetary Act rather than abolishing it. This is the only way to return the control of money to the American People.

I'll follow this up with a history lesson on usury and the gold standard soon

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Article 1 section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility

that's a fallacy

currently they are already not regulating the value thereof.

so not regulating value is what they are currently doing

is your argument that not-regulating-the-value-thereof via honest money (with a weight standard) is somehow more unconstitutional and therefore worse than already not-regulating-the-value-thereof via a deceitful fiat money?

"The power to "coin money

"The power to "coin money and regulate foreign coin" is limited by the terms "coin and foreign" to the precious metals, because it could not extend to native paper currency, without including foreign; and a standard of weights, respecting money, refers to money capable of being weighed. The states are prohibited "from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts." The distinction between specie and paper currency is in this clause established. A power, prohibited to the states and not delegated to congress, can be exercised by neither. A power, the direct exercise of which is prohibited, ought not to be indirectly exercised. A power, prohibited or not delegated to the principal, cannot be delegated by that principal to another. Bills of credit are distinguished from other objects of tender laws, which had been numerous among the states, and are prohibited absolutely, whether the quality of being made a tender for debts was annexed to them or not. Otherwise, it would have been unnecessary to mention them at all. The powers of "coining money, emitting bills of credit, and making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment for debts," being prohibited to the states; and the first power only being delegated to congress; it follows that the other two are prohibited and not delegated. And it seems to me, that it may be as speciously contended, according to the late fashion of construction, that the states may make any thing, but gold and silver, a tender; as that either congress or the states can delegate to individuals or corporations a power to emit bills of credit; or impair contracts by suspensions of payments in" favour of their own creatures, or of unlucky speculators. Either would be a usurpation of a sovereign power over property, not delegated to one department, and expressly prohibited to the other. It may be also remarked, that the power given to congress "to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States" by omitting bills of credit, recognizes their exclusion, and does not include bills of credit emitted by corporations." - John Taylor

------------------------------------------
"...we are face to face with the problem whether ours is a government under a written constitution and the laws made pursuant thereto, or whether it is a government by ambitious and usurping men.'" -- F.Pierce

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

That`s about the most convoluted bunch of crap I`ve read lately.

Goldman Sachs and company have been running the treasury dept. for the last 25 years--- they are the government. Most of the large corporations are in bed with the government . can you spell FASCISM.
A corrupt overgrown government that can tax and give favors to corporations is the problem. A truly free market will always adjust itself in order to keep it`s very viability alive. Ron Paul has always been correct in his blame of the government because without their tax breaks, unbid contracts, and preferencial treatment all corporations would have to compete on an equal basis for the business they aquire.
Stand back slide the government out of the equation and you will see a free market deliver to free people what they wish to own.

"We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt"
Joseph Biden VP , USA

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

agreed/

agreed/

If you have a junky & he

If you have a junky & he needs cured ,you take his candy away.
Good people ,do Good deeds
and are no respecter of person

Professor Fekete on the Gold Standard

Please note the first article at this link is an argument in favor of the Gold Standard:

http://www.professorfekete.com/math.asp

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged p731

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.

Your most basic premis is

Your most basic premis is that gold has a FIXED value & cannot fluctuate ..As witnessed in todays "paper standard",gold prices fluctuate quite nicely..You can change the value of any commodity, at any time ..It just depends how much demand is place upon the commodity..You could use any type commodity, that is trade ,for a standard ..A precious metal is preferred because the demand is the greatest & at one time was very stable ..Stability is a huge requirement for trade puposes...Gold is used because a person cannot easily duplicate it & flood the economy on a whim...Ron Paul knows more than I & he certainly knows this much basic stuff..So your premis is kaput..Every trader ( Country) today has an exchange rate for what ever the currency is exchanging to.To go back to the gold standard ,would requie all Counties to barter gold exchanges, in accordance to a Countrys asset values, Basicly..
Good people ,do Good deeds
and are no respecter of person

You have me misunderstood.

I'm saying the congress cant manipulate the gold price there for making it illegal under the constitution. They could make it dip and rise slightly but cant control it.

Lincoln did the greenbacks after not wanting to deal with the criminal bankers. If we were to switch to the gold standard, where would we get the gold? Trade our worthless fiat dollars for it?

I'm for the greenbacks because they ARE constitutional. you don't need to amend the constitution to bring back the greenbacks. So it is definitely possible to go to Lincoln's green backs in fact it would be the ideal scenario because it is a debt free currency that can be regulated by the congress like the constitution demands.

you're arguing about what

you're arguing about what color you want your blindfold, then they're going to slip it on you and give you your cigarette.

Stax, Ron Paul has bashed

Stax,

Ron Paul has bashed secret societies and corporations many times. He is not lewrockwell.com, where I agree they blame EVERYTHING on the government(they hit their target most of the time because the government is so out of control).

The USA was on a Gold Standard when the Constitution was written, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Ventura 2012